*Official* Australia in India ODIs 2019/20

[sunilz]

Yeah. Everywhere pitches are flat

 

[OverratedSanity]

welcome, welcome

Im out at sea but your 'all odi stats suck' island is still a ways off

 

[srbhkshk]

Last 6 years in ODIs (min 3000 runs):

Player	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	SR	100	50
V Kohli (INDIA)	120	118	21	6638	160*	68.43	97.26	26	29
AB de Villiers (SA)	69	65	14	3246	176	63.64	119.03	9	17
LRPL Taylor (NZ)	96	92	21	4391	181*	61.84	84	12	26
RG Sharma (INDIA)	110	109	12	5941	264	61.24	95.33	25	23
F du Plessis (SA)	96	91	15	4405	185	57.96	89.97	12	28
DA Warner (AUS)	78	77	6	3920	179	55.21	101.52	16	13
JE Root (ENG)	121	114	18	5225	133*	54.42	88.42	16	29
Babar Azam (PAK)	74	72	10	3359	125*	54.17	87.08	11	15
KS Williamson (NZ)	100	98	8	4794	148	53.26	83.12	10	33
AD Mathews (SL)	101	93	24	3522	139*	51.04	83.59	3	24
SD Hope (WI)	75	70	10	3051	170	50.85	73.89	8	15
Mushfiqur Rahim (BDESH)	94	90	15	3651	144	48.68	88.53	6	25
SPD Smith (AUS)	88	84	8	3659	164	48.14	86.91	9	24
HM Amla (SA)	96	96	8	4059	159	46.12	86.71	15	16
S Dhawan (INDIA)	105	103	5	4457	143	45.47	94.02	12	24
Tamim Iqbal (BDESH)	80	78	7	3190	132	44.92	77.01	7	22
Q de Kock (SA)	99	99	6	4166	178	44.79	96.92	10	24
MJ Guptill (NZ)	100	99	10	3981	237*	44.73	91.58	12	17
JJ Roy (ENG)	84	81	2	3381	180	42.79	107.4	9	18
JC Buttler (ENG)	121	101	20	3462	150	42.74	118.92	9	18
AJ Finch (AUS)	102	99	3	4086	153*	42.56	88.98	14	22
EJG Morgan (ENG)	124	114	11	4027	148	39.09	95.2	7	26

Boy, England sure do play a hell lot of cricket, about top in ODIs here and tend to be comfortably ahead in tests too.

 

[stephen]

I'm finding it more and more difficult to draw anything of value from odi stats tbh. So many players are putting up numbers that would've made them shoo-ins for an all time xi 15 years ago.

ODI stats are virtually meaningless right now for these reasons:

1) Two new balls has homogenized the skills in the one day game substantially. There is now little difference coming in to bat in the 20th over or the 40th from a conditions perspective. The ball is still hard.
2) Because of point 1, long innings' are favourable to shorter innings. If one or both of your openers don't fire, your side is probably going to lose. If one of your openers gets out after facing a decent number of balls but before going large it's going to hurt you more than if they got a duck.
3) Bowlers have been marginalised so much that you basically have to be an ATG bowler to be any kind of threat.
4) The main difference between grounds now is not the pitch (which are universally roads) but the size of the ground itself. The big 5 Australian grounds see much lower totals only because they're larger and see more 2s and 4s that would otherwise have been 4s or 6s on other grounds.
5) Sides are not bowling their best attacks regularly. The best bowlers of the last decade have played a third the one dayers that players of previous eras did. This means that these bowlers are less experienced than the batsmen they're facing and it means that the batsmen get big statistical boosts by facing second string attacks.

None of this in any way diminishes Kohli's accomplishments, but if this is the way the game is headed, there might be a permanent divide in ODI stats between pre-2015 players and post-2015 players, just as there is between pre WWI and post WWI batsmen in tests.

 

[googlyeyes]

Is this the part where we tell you the guy had 6k+ runs even before 2015?

 

[Daemon]

Is this the part where we tell you the guy had 6k+ runs even before 2015?

He's making valid points, not attacking Kohli in anyway. Don't take it so personally Shri.

 

[sunilz]

Agree with everything Stephen has posted. This is why I want DOG to have a crack at ODI batting ratings because I would really like to know where do Mark Waugh/ Desilva stand in comparison to modern batsmen.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Agree with everything Stephen has posted. This is why I want DOG to have a crack at ODI batting ratings because I would really like to know where do Mark Waugh/ Desilva stand in comparison to modern batsmen.

Its far too difficult for any stat exercise to standardize it properly because its simply changed too much, thats the point. Its like its an entirely different format from the way it was in the 90s.

 

[srbhkshk]

Its far too difficult for any stat exercise to standardize it properly because its simply changed too much, thats the point. Its like its an entirely different format from the way it was in the 90s.

Even without the change it's far harder to rank ODI batsman because Strike rate is a far far bigger factor than in tests.

 

[sunilz]

Its far too difficult for any stat exercise to standardize it properly because its simply changed too much, thats the point. Its like its an entirely different format from the way it was in the 90s.

However we all can agree that Rohit Sharma should replace Gilchrist in ODI ATXI

 

[honestbharani]

ODI stats are virtually meaningless right now for these reasons:

1) Two new balls has homogenized the skills in the one day game substantially. There is now little difference coming in to bat in the 20th over or the 40th from a conditions perspective. The ball is still hard.
2) Because of point 1, long innings' are favourable to shorter innings. If one or both of your openers don't fire, your side is probably going to lose. If one of your openers gets out after facing a decent number of balls but before going large it's going to hurt you more than if they got a duck.
3) Bowlers have been marginalised so much that you basically have to be an ATG bowler to be any kind of threat.
4) The main difference between grounds now is not the pitch (which are universally roads) but the size of the ground itself. The big 5 Australian grounds see much lower totals only because they're larger and see more 2s and 4s that would otherwise have been 4s or 6s on other grounds.
5) Sides are not bowling their best attacks regularly. The best bowlers of the last decade have played a third the one dayers that players of previous eras did. This means that these bowlers are less experienced than the batsmen they're facing and it means that the batsmen get big statistical boosts by facing second string attacks.

None of this in any way diminishes Kohli's accomplishments, but if this is the way the game is headed, there might be a permanent divide in ODI stats between pre-2015 players and post-2015 players, just as there is between pre WWI and post WWI batsmen in tests.

I won't agree it is that bad and I am pretty sure if you see the stats you will see that many good ODI bowlers have still been bowling. The two new balls have certainly negated most of the finger spinnners and the short boundaries have been more frequent than they used to be but there is also the fact that pre 2015 guys had that stupid powerplay rule for a good 5 to 8 years and before that, the even sillier 15 over rule with balls above shoulder height being no-balls. It is absolutely true the average score has gone up but I would attribute it more to the impact of T20 cricket than just some sudden massive downturn of bowlers. I think the noughties had worse bowlers than we do today and with much siller gimmicky field restrictions and rules. While I do agree with the broader point that ODI stats today cannot be directly compared to the 90s, I think there are factors which are just being negated by such a totally one sided view.

The only real point is that on average the runs scored have gone up but like I said, there can be other factors that play into it than just "bowling is just easier to face today". IIRC, there was a big jump in ODI scores in the mid 90s in comparison to the 80-95 period as well and it would be silly to apply some sort of corrective bias to stats of just one period while assuming every other era in ODIs was the same. IT was not.

 

[Spark]

The bowlers overall are of comparable or better quality. But as stephen says and you somehow missed, the point is that the good bowlers simply aren't playing much.

 

[honestbharani]

I didn't miss it, my point is that it is offset by the sheer number of games now. I don't think you can say that the good bowlers don't play often, just offhand. I feel enough good bowlers do play overall. I mean, you do realize the noughties and even the 90s were the era of folks like Chris Harris and Ian Harvey? How are they better than some of the blokes going around now?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Pretty factual that the best pacers from most teams are rested very often these days outside the big tournaments.

 

[honestbharani]

In terms of percentage, sure. But I am talking actual number of games here. Plus I actually feel there has been the need to get more quality bowlers into the ODI sides in the last few years than there was in the 90s and noughties, which really was the era for the no-rounders.

And batsmen are rested often too, not as often as seamers but its not like they all play every game either. As I said, I am sure they are true factors but not to the extent stephen's post makes it seem. To me, its the rise of T20 cricket that has been the major major contributor to the kind of scores we see now and hence the need to have to contextualize these numbers in that sense. I really don't think in terms of batsmanship itself, there has been any decrease in this era compared to previous. And once you start era-adjusting, it has to be done across all eras. You cannot assume the 90s numbers to be the same coz it was a very different game compared to the 80s and so on.

 

[ankitj]

Yeah, top batsmen give a miss to not so important tourneys and bilateral series. I think Kohli sat out of 2 Asia cups back to back or at least one.

 

[harsh.ag]

Honestly, the standard of the game is much higher now than in the 90s. Batting is easier, granted, but more than that, batsmen have really worked on their games and have figured out the art of ODI batting. And this is true for a bunch of batsmen now compared to 4-5 in previous eras. That's what makes it different.

 

[sunilz]

The fact there are only 2 bowlers from top ODI teams above 700 ratings points ( Moderate benchmark) means there is a serious scarcity of top ODI bowlers or most of them are losing points as they are resting from ODI matches.
Throughout last decade ODI bowling quality has been very poor. I think there has certainly been scarcity of great ODI bowlers since retirement of Pollock, McGrath, Muralitharan and Bond.

 

[honestbharani]

I am not getting into a stats comparison but to me, as someone who has followed the game with a passion since the 90s, I don't see any reason to think the bowlers today are somehow inferior overall to the ones in the 90s and noughties. There may not be stand outs like the ones Sunilz mentioned but there are no Ian Harveys bowling 8 overs a game either.

 

[ankitj]

Honestly, the standard of the game is much higher now than in the 90s. Batting is easier, granted, but more than that, batsmen have really worked on their games and have figured out the art of ODI batting. And this is true for a bunch of batsmen now compared to 4-5 in previous eras. That's what makes it different.

Yes. I have said this before. While we lament flat pitches and favorable fielding restrictions, we under appreciate how good batsmen have got at the mental game. Chasing big totals has become quite nerveless. 20 years back the nervousness when chasing totals in excess of 280 used to be palpable.